[EM] BeatpathWinner algorithm

Wed Jun 1 20:16:49 PDT 2005

Let's get this straight. Mike thinks that "Beatpathwinner" is a good 
method, yet he could not program it correctly because he doesn't "have 
Python." This would be sad if it weren't so funny. Python is available 
for free public download at python.org, of course (not to mention 
pre-installed with most Linux distros). But that is of no use to Mike 
because he doesn't know how to download and install it. And even if 
someone did it for him, he still wouldn't know what to do with it, 
because I'll bet a dollar to a donut he doesn't even know how to use a 
text editor.

I'd like to pose a monumental intellectual challenge to Mike. This could 
take days or even weeks to accomplish, but the result will be well worth 
the effort. I challenge Mike to figure out how to change his name in the 
"from" line of his emails from all caps to normal capitalization like 
everyone else uses. It's bad enough that I get his ponderous emails 
cluttering my inbox, but I have to see "MIKE OSSIPOFF" all over the 
place, like a child screaming for attention. Do you think Mike can 
accomplish that, folks? I'll bet even money up to $50 that he can't or 
won't do it within a month. Any takers?

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> 
> Russ said, 11 days ago:
> 
> You might also recall that Mike's "beatpathwinner" algorithm
> 
> I comment:
> 
> It wasn't "Mike's". It was from Steve, and I said so.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> 
> that had
> appeared at http://ElectionMethods.org was a fifth-order algorithm,
> whereas it should have been third-order.
> 
> I comment:
> 
> _Should_ have been? Maybe _could_ have been, except that Russ didn't 
> know that it could. Russ didn't know that that algorithm could make do 
> with only one pass through the 3-candidate permutations, by re-arranging 
> the indices.  It didn't occur to Russ that the algorithm could be 
> speeded up in that way.
> 
> No, it didn't occur to me either. But that's irrelevant. It's relevant 
> that it didn't occur to Russ, because Russ is the one who is criticizing 
> the fact that the speed-up wasn't included in the algorithm at his website.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> I guess I share responsibility
> for that little blunder
> 
> I comment:
> 
> Yes, I guess you do. I sent to you a Python program using an algorithm 
> from Steve. At no time did I say that I was an "algorithm expert", to 
> use your term. At no time did I claim that there wasn't a more efficient 
> algorithm.
> 
> You, Russ, were completely clueless about the fact that the algorithm 
> could be speeded up, could avoid the need for more than one pass through 
> the 3-candidate permutations, by re-arranging the indices in the formula 
> that uses them. As I said, that didn't occur to Russ, and he needs to 
> blame himself if he's bothered by the fact that the algorithm didn't 
> have the one-pass speedup.
> 
> Though the possibility of that speedup didn't occur to me either, Russ 
> is the one who has a great problem about it, and so I mention that Russ 
> was quite clueless about the possibility of modifying the index-order so 
> that only one pass would be needed.
> 
> When it was claimed on EM that an index-rearrangement would make it 
> possible to complete the task with one pass through the 3-candidate 
> permutation, I told Russ about that. That information was not kept from 
> Russ. I didn't ask Russ to change the algorithm in the way described on 
> EM, because no one posted a proof of the claim that it would work. It 
> was asserted repeatedly on EM, and I repeatedly asked that someone post 
> a demonstration of the claim. No one did.
> 
> I wasn't willing to ask Russ to change the algorithm based on an 
> unsupported claim. But I told him about the claim. Russ chose to leave 
> the algorithm as it was, and not re-arrange the indices, and not have it 
> do only one pass through the permutations.
> 
> It wasn't my fault that you passively used what I sent to you.
> 
> Russ continued:
> 
> because I had implemented Mike's algorithm in
> Python for him.
> 
> I comment:
> 
> For me? In what sense for me? Actually I e-mailed to you a Python 
> program that carries out Steve's BeatpathWinner algorithm. You didn't 
> implement it in Python. I wrote it in Python and sent it to you. You 
> then wrote your Python program which was nothing other than a copy of 
> the one that I sent to you.
> 
> You claimed that my program had errors. It had syntax typos in its 1st 
> version. I didn't have Python, and therefore couldn't test the program. 
> It's unusual for the 1st version of a program to not have some sort of 
> syntax typo. Mine was no exception. I had lelt out some colons. 
> Subsequently I sent to you a version that didn't have the syntax typos, 
> or any other errors.
> 
> Contrary to your earlier claim, there were no "logical errors". There 
> were only syntax typos. And only one or two of those (occurring here and 
> there in the program, of course).
> 
> The only other fault of the 1st version of my Python BeatpathWinner 
> program was that the Python book that I was using mis-stated how Python 
> does multidimensional arrays. That was the fault of a careless author, 
> and wasn't my fault.
> 
> By running the program, Russ found out that the multidimensional arrays 
> didn't work as the book implied, and, by expermenting with his Python 
> interpreter (It seems to me that Python is interpreted rather than 
> compiled. Anyway, I'll use that word with the understanding that maybe I 
> should have said "compiler".), he found out how they are done by Python.
> 
> He told me what he'd found out by experiment, but I chose to not base my 
> program on his experiment results. I didn't use Python's 
> multidimensional arrays.
> 
> Instead, I made multidimensional arrays from Python's 1-dimensional 
> arrays, and a function that I wrote.
> 
> With that, and the correction of the syntax typos, my program was 
> correct. I sent a copy of that final version to Russ.
> 
> He chose a different way to deal with the multidimensional arrays, by 
> experimentally finding out what works, and that's fine. But I sent to 
> him a correct Python BeatpathWinner program.
> 
> About the Python book's failure to accurately describe how the 
> multidimensional arrays work: It seems to me that books on a programming 
> language should only be written by the person who wrote that language. 
> If that person doesn't want to write such a book, then maybe one could 
> be written by a mathematician, working closely from the 
> language-author's description. But, failing those authorships, at least 
> the book then should _not_ be written by a programmer or a computer 
> specialist.  Such a specialist, who may have been using trhe language so 
> long that its features are 2nd nature to him, and feel like instinct, or 
> seem obvious to him, is likely to be careless and leave things out.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> I had urged him to program and test it himself, but he
> was incapable
> 
> I comment:
> 
> I didn't have a Python interpreter.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> , so I did it for him.
> 
> I comment:
> 
> No, Russ tested the program for himself, so that he could put it at the 
> website. He didn't test it for me. The testing showed that the 
> multidimensional arrays didn't work as the Python book implied. He 
> experimented and found out how they do work. By testing he found out 
> about the syntax typos. With the experimentally-found multidimensional 
> arrays, and the experimentally-found syntax typo corrections, Russ wrote 
> a program that was really only a copy of what I'd sent to him. I then 
> corrected the syntax typos too, and made the multidimensional arrays. 
> And, just to be doing so, I sent to Russ a correct Python program, 
> though I knew that he'd made similar corrections himself and had a 
> completed program, or was writing one.
> 
> Russ continued:
> 
> (In retrospect, it should have been
> obvious to me that anyone who is incapable of programming a computer in
> this day and age
> 
> I comment:
> 
> So Russ is still saying that. It's unusual for any program, in its 1st 
> version to not have any syntax typos. I subsequently sent to Russ a 
> correct version of the Python BeatpathWinner program. At no time did any 
> BeatpathWinner program or algorithm that I sent to Russ have "logical 
> errors", as Russ claimed.
> 
> When I took a course in FORTRAN 77, I got an "A" in the course. That 
> college had two FORTRAN courses, and I then wanted to take the 2nd one. 
> But it wasn't offered often, and the only programming language course 
> being offered in a course was Applesoft BASIC. So I took that course, 
> because at that time BASIC was the programming language found on 
> personal computers. Especially Applesoft BASIC. I might have only gotten 
> a "B" in that course, because of an assignment that I hadn't gotten 
> around to completing.
> 
> I did some individual projects using FORTRAN and BASIC, the two 
> programming languages that were available on college computers at that 
> time.
> 
> It seems silly to post here to answer a claim that I'm incapable of 
> programming a computer. I mean, what does that have to do with EM's 
> topic? But Russ has made that off-topic, irrelevant, claim several 
> times, and I might as well answer it, as I have just done.
> 
> I don't claim to be a professional programmer. But the final version of 
> my Python BeatpathWinner program was correct.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> is unlikely to be an algorithm expert!)
> 
> I comment:
> 
> At no time did I say that I was an algorithm expert. Russ got the 
> algorithm from me, just as I got it from Steve.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> As you know, I have since replaced Mike's goofy fifth-order algorithm
> 
> I comment:
> 
> As I said, it wasn't "Mike's" algorithm. I got it from Steve, and Russ 
> got it from me. Now Russ wants it to be entirely my fault that it didn't 
> have the speedup that didn't occur to Russ either.
> 
> As for "goofy", Russ apparently was too goofy to notice that it could be 
> speeded up, to notice that rearranging the indices in the formula at the 
> center of the loops would enable the algorithm to complete its task in 
> one pass through the 3-candidate permutations. But Russ doesn't want to 
> say that he himself was goofy because that speedup didn't occur to him.
> 
> Though I told Russ about the speedup claim when I heard that claim on 
> EM, I wouldn't have recommended adding the speedup, even if someone had 
> demonstrated that it worked (and no one did demonstrate that it worked). 
> That's because, in the form in which I sent it to Russ, the algorithm is 
> obvious and natural. It is not obvious that, if you rearrange the order 
> of the indices in that formula inside the loops, the algorithm will need 
> only one pass through the 3-candidate permutations. It was un-obvious 
> enough that no one on EM responded to my request for a proof that it 
> would work. And, as I said, Russ himself was quite clueless about that 
> possibility.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> Mike's algorithm, on the
> other hand, was given to me under the implied but unstated "Mike's
> copyright,"
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Wrong. When I sent the algorithm to Russ, I didn't imply anything about 
> ownership of it.
> 
> My later withdrawal of permission to have things that originated from me 
> was not based on any claim of legal ownership or copyright. It was a 
> matter of whether or not Russ had enough pride to quit using materials 
> from me at his website when permission was withdrawn. As I said, last I 
> checked, Russ was still demonstating that he didn't have any 
> self-respect, because he was still using definitions of mine, 
> word-for-word, and was still featuring my wv, though I'd withdrawn 
> permission to have things that had originated from me.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> which rivals his algorithms and criteria for goofiness.
> 
> I comment:
> 
> As I said, Russ suddenly discovered that he didn't like my criteria 
> immediately after I told him that he no longer had permission to have 
> them, or anything originating from me, at his website.
> 
> He didn't accept that immediately. First, in two e-mails, he pleaded 
> that I not make that decision. Only when I stood by the withdrawal of 
> permission, did Russ suddenly realize that he didn't like my criteria, 
> which he had initially asked me for permission to post at his website, 
> and had kept there for years.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> It
> goes something like this: "This work should be universally accepted
> 
> I comment:
> 
> I haven't said that my work should be universally accepted, but I have 
> said that, for some criteria, the versions other than my preference 
> versions lack usefulness and meaning.
> 
> But what someone else should or will do is entirely their business.
> 
> Russ continues:
> 
> , but
> I, Mike, retain the unconditional right to deny anyone the right to use 
> it."
> 
> I reply:
> 
> There's no doubt that I had, and have, the right to refuse permission 
> for Russ to use materials originating from me, at his website. That is 
> not a claim that I have legal ownership of the material. I have no idea 
> about that. I withdrew permission for Russ to use the materials, and the 
> rest depends on whether or not Russ has any self-respect.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's 
> FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> 